Juliana v. United States

In a supplemental order, the district court responded to the Ninth Circuit’s invitation to address the petition for writ of mandamus. The district court stated that although the case raised “legal issues of first impression,” the matters the district court had addressed were “the bread-and-butter of daily trial court work: injury, causation, and redressability under Article III; justiciability; viability of claims under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b); standards for injunctive and declaratory relief—foundational inquiries necessary to proceed to any factfinding phase reaching the heart of plaintiffs’ novel claims.” The district court maintained that the issues raised in the mandamus petition (whether the district court violated the writ of mandate, and the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs had standing and had stated plausible due process and public trust doctrine claims) were “better addressed through the ordinary course of litigation” than in a petition for writ of mandamus.

The federal district court for the District of Oregon denied the federal government’s motion to stay proceedings while the Ninth Circuit considered the government’s petition for writ of mandamus. The district court found that the federal defendants did not meet their burden of showing a likelihood that their petition for writ of mandamus would succeed on the merits. The court also rejected the defendants’ contentions that litigation costs and “potential, intrusive discovery that treads on separation of powers grounds” would result in irreparable injury if a stay was not granted to resolve threshold jurisdictional issues. The court further found that the plaintiffs had provided “substantial evidence of tangible, irreparable injury brought about the defendants’ repeated delays,” with “[e]xpert and plaintiff declarations … establish[ing] an ever-worsening climate crisis and with it, risks to plaintiffs’ health, their future, and their constitutional due process rights.” The court also stated that it could not discern any public interest in further delaying the case from reaching the evidentiary phase.

–

–

–

After the federal district court for the District of Oregon allowed the youth plaintiffs in Juliana to proceed with some claims in their amended complaint, the federal defendants filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of a forthcoming petition for writ of mandamus asking the Ninth Circuit to enforce its mandate issued in March 2021 and to direct the district court to dismiss the case in its entirety.

The federal district court for the District of Oregon denied in part the federal government’s motion to dismiss youth plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserting that federal defendants violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to a stable climate system. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they did not have standing because courts could not redress the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The district court first reconsidered its June 2023 determination that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not foreclose allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint; the district court again concluded that allowing the plaintiffs to amend did not contravene the rule of mandate. Regarding the plaintiffs’ standing, the district court first adopted the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the plaintiffs established an injury in fact arising from climate change impacts that was fairly traceable to defendants. Regarding redressability, the district court noted that the plaintiffs had “scaled back” their request for injunctive relief by removing a request for a directive requiring the defendants to “prepare a remedial plan” and instead seeking to restrain the defendants “from carrying out policies, practices, and affirmative actions that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms [p]laintiffs.” The court found that such relief was substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ harm but that even this narrower request for injunctive relief “still treads on ground over which [the] Ninth Circuit cautioned the Court not to step” because the relief was sought “against a host of governmental defendants” and “would be more expansive than any case of which the Court is aware.” The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs’ requested declaratory relief—i.e., a declaration that “the national energy system” violates the Constitution and public trust doctrine—“may be enough to bring about relief by changed conduct” and that the defendants failed to show that such relief was outside the court’s authority. The court also found that “the political question doctrine does not impede plaintiffs’ claims.” Regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ due process claim for failure to state a claim, the district court found “that the right to a climate system that can sustain human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society” and that the allegations that governmental action was damaging the climate system in a way that would result in harm to humans stated a claim for a due process violation. The district court also found that the plaintiffs stated a “danger creation” due process claim with their allegations that the defendants failed to adequately regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of third parties. The court also incorporated its earlier analysis concluding that plaintiffs alleged violations of the public trust doctrine in connection with the territorial sea. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs were required to bring their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed, however, the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, finding it to be foreclosed by precedent holding that age is not a suspect class. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ claim under the Ninth Amendment was not viable. The court denied the defendants’ requests to certify for interlocutory appellate review this decision and its earlier decision allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to stay the litigation and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set a pretrial conference.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The defendants opposed the motion to set a pretrial conference, contending that the court should first resolve the motion to dismiss and alternative motion for interlocutory appeal, as well as a forthcoming motion requesting that the court certify for interlocutory appeal its order granting leave to file an amended complaint.

After the federal district court for the District of Oregon granted the Juliana youth plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to attempt to remedy standing deficiencies identified by the Ninth Circuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendants argued that the amended complaint was “not different in any relevant sense” from the complaint rejected by the Ninth Circuit and that the court therefore should comply with the Ninth Circuit’s mandate and dismiss the amended complaint. In addition, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs did not allege a redressable claim, that the action was not a case or controversy over which a federal court would have jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs’ claims based on constitutional violations and an alleged public trust failed on the merits because the Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to a “stable climate system” and no federal public trust doctrine applies. The defendants asked that, in the event the court denies the motion to dismiss, that it certify its order for interlocutory appeal.

–

Plaintiffs filed a motion to set a pretrial conference or to enter a pretrial order setting an expedited trial date no later than Spring 2024.

–

More than three years after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States lacked standing for their claims that federal defendants violated their constitutionally protected rights to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life, the federal district court for the District of Oregon granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to attempt to cure what the district court characterized as “a narrow deficiency with plaintiffs’ pleadings on redressability.” The district court concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not require the court “to shut the courthouse doors” on the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs cited intervening precedent and made new factual allegations. In particular, the plaintiffs cited a 2021 Supreme Court decision that held that judicial ability to “to effectuate a partial remedy” satisfies the redressability requirement for standing. The plaintiffs contended that their amended allegations demonstrated that relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act would provide sufficient partial redress of their climate change-related injuries. The plaintiffs also omitted relief that the Ninth Circuit found to be outside the scope of judicial authority, including a request for an order requiring the defendants to develop and implement a remedial plan. The district court found that the proposed amendments were not futile, concluding that “a declaration that federal defendants’ energy policies violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights would itself be significant relief” and that such relief was “squarely within the constitutional and statutory power of Article III courts to grant.” The court therefore found “that the complaint can be saved by amendment.”

In a separate opinion and order, the court dropped the plaintiff Earth Guardians from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and dismissed its claims without prejudice, as Earth Guardians requested. The court denied the federal defendants’ motion for entry of final judgment against Earth Guardians pursuant to Rule 54(b). The court found that judgment under Rule 54(b) would not be proper because the claims of Earth Guardians and the youth plaintiffs were “logically related, both from a factual and legal standpoint.”

–

–

On March 14, 2023, the federal district court for the District of Oregon denied motions by 18 states, led by Alabama, to intervene as defendants in young people’s constitutional climate change case against the United States and other federal defendants. The states sought to intervene in 2021 to oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint after the Ninth Circuit ruled that they did not have standing. The court granted the states leave to refile their motions to intervene after the court rules on the pending motion to amend. On the same day, the court granted New York and five other states’ motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae to “correct” the proposed state intervenors’ “erroneous assertions” about collusion between plaintiffs and federal defendants in other cases and the proposed intervenors’ “incomplete picture” of the impacts on states of federal action to address climate change. The court also granted Natural Resources Defense Council’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief opposing the states’ motion to intervene.

–

–

The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in which they argued that the Supreme Court’s November opinion in Mississippi v. Tennessee—which concerned rights to groundwater underlying eight states—supported “the broad principle that even after a case is dismissed for failing to plead a viable remedy, a motion to amend could be brought to cure the pleading deficiency.” The plaintiffs contended that the opinion therefore supported their motion for leave to file an amended complaint to address the Ninth Circuit’s determination that they did not have standing.

On November 1, 2021, the law firm representing the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, announced that settlement talks with the U.S. Department of Justice had ended the previous week without resolution. The announcement said the plaintiffs and their attorneys had concluded that there was no reason to continue the settlement discussions “until decision-makers for the federal defendants come to the settlement table.” The plaintiffs’ attorney said the plaintiffs would await a ruling from the district court on their motion to amend their complaint.

–

–

The plaintiffs opposed the defendants' motion for entry of judgment, arguing that instead Earth Guardians should be dropped as a plaintiff, at its request, pursuant to Rule 21. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants’ motion “appears to be part of a broader strategy to set up another early appeal or review by way of mandamus in connection with the pending Motion to Amend.” They contended that the court should issue “one final judgment at the conclusion of the case to avoid any further unnecessary early appeals.”

After the organization Earth Guardians declined to join other plaintiffs in a motion to file an amended complaint in Juliana v. United States, the federal government filed a motion requesting entry of judgment against Earth Guardians. The government argued that because the Ninth Circuit had ordered that claims of all plaintiffs be dismissed and because Earth Guardians no longer was part of the plaintiffs’ efforts to amend the complaint, Earth Guardians’ claims should be dismissed for lack of standing.

In Juliana v. United States, briefing was completed on the motion by states led by Alabama to intervene as defendants for the limited purpose of contesting the district court’s jurisdiction and to prevent a potential “collusive settlement” between the plaintiffs and the federal defendants.

On July 16, 2021, the federal defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ notice of supplemental authority regarding four recent Supreme Court decisions that the plaintiffs argued supported their standing; the defendants said the decisions did not affect the Ninth Circuit’s determination that declaratory relief could not on its own redress an injury, and that the court therefore should deny the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a supplement to their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The modifications removed a plaintiff and substituted Biden administration officials as defendants. The plaintiffs also informed the court in the motion that they had decided not to seek to add nominal damages to their request for relief.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sought to file an amicus brief that argued that the court should deny the intervention motion without prejudice. NRDC reasoned that the states would not be prejudiced if intervention were deferred until the time of any proposed consent decree that might affect the states’ interests.

–

–

–

Six states, led by New York, filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amici in support of the plaintiffs; they asserted an “interest in correcting proposed intervenors’ erroneous assertions about purported collusion between the parties” in two lawsuits referenced in the motion to intervene, as well as an interest in correcting the proposed intervenor states’ “incomplete picture of the effects that federal action to address climate change will have on States and state residents.”

–